TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:I have to agree. Good judgement, bad judgement aside, there is absolutely no valid reason for a bad-guy to do bad things to those women...whatever time of day or night.

Again, no argument out of me, and I never said there was.

gemini wrote:My anger and disgust lay entirely with the perpetrator, I hold him entirely responsible for his actions.

And I agree. No argument from me. None. Here is where you and I might differ... I am able to assign 100% blame on the perpetrator and in the same breath suggest that the victims' lack of wisdom in their behavior placed them both into a situation where they faced a higher likelihood of such an outcome. That doesn't mean that I think they deserved it. In fact, I was very clear about that last point in my previous post. They don't deserve it. The perpetrator does not escape one iota of blame. But, part of my point is that what happened to the victims might well have been avoided if they had made wiser choices, and that is a perfectly valid observation.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:So, what may be construed as irresponsible behaviour for a young female may be rational behaviour for a young male?

I think we are letting the whole "equality between the sexes" issue cloud the discussion. I've stayed out of this thread except as a casual observer until now, but there are several messages being communicated which are at cross purposes....

PERSONAL FREEDOM: I don't think there is a single member here who doesn't believe in the proposition of personal freedom. We are free people, and we are free to come and go, at any hour, and in any place of our choosing, so long as it does not violate some law. Personal freedom says it is OK to eat at Jack's at 3:00 a.m., driving whatever kind of car we own, regardless of our gender, as long as we're old enough to be out past curfew. (Does Houston even have a curfew law for the underaged?)

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: I don't think there is a single member here who doesn't believe in personal responsibility. It is part of the burden we agree to bear when we get a CHL and go about strapped every day. We simple are responsible for our actions, and our actions always have consequences - sometimes good, sometimes bad. The odds that outcomes will be good can be weighted in our favor by exercising a little wisdom.

GENDER EQUALITY: I don't think there isn't a single member here who doesn't believe that a woman has all the rights of a man, or even that, in some regards, women are superior to men - just as in other regards, men might be superior to women. Vive la difference. When someone says "I wouldn't let my wife do such and so," they are not speaking from an authoritarian position. They are speaking from a position of love. In the same way, I wouldn't "let" my friend walk off a cliff, if I could reasonably prevent it. That statement doesn't mean I don't think my friend has rights equal to my own. It does mean that people who care for one another also look out for one another's interests, and to the extent possible without being socially awkward, try to protect those people if they can from being foolish. If you saw a friend about to unknowingly step out in front of a speeding bus, you would grab his/her arm and pull him/her back, wouldn't you? If you wouldn't at least try, then you're not responsible enough to be walking around with a gun on your hip.

That said, a realist will admit that most women are not the physical equal of most men (and read this through before you jump on me) in terms of physical size and brute strength, nor do they tend to be possessed of that naturally aggressive nature which comes easily to males. I'm talking generalities here. Of course, there are always exceptions. Thus, two things come out of this: 1) women are generally more likely to draw a predator's attention because it is going to be the predator's perception that they are a softer target (whether or not that is actually the case); and 2) without a gun, women are generally less physically able to deter a predator's agressions, on average, that would be a man who is closer to the predator's physical equal. These are just stark realities, and they have nothing to do whatsoever with equal rights under the law.

VICTIM VS. PREDATOR: I also don't think there is a single member here who doesn't understand the clear difference between a victim and a predator. Nobody asks to be a victim. And one is still a victim of a crime, whether or not one's own foolishness put one at a higher risk of becoming a crime victim, AND whether or not life's circumstances force one to live in an area with higher crime. Just because you are in a higher risk area, that does not mean you surrender your right not to be victimized. However, even if life's circumstances force you to live in a high crime area, you are not absolved under the doctrine of personal responsibility from the need to make sure - to the extent possible - that you do what you can to try and minimize your risks within the context you are forced to endure. To not do so is to practice foolishness.

WISDOM VS. PERSONAL FREEDOM VS. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY VS. GENDER EQUALITY VS. VICTIMS AND PREDATORS: Sure we have the personal freedom to do whatever we want to, within the law. But because we are also personally responsible (and rightfully expect personal responsibility from others), we have to be aware that our actions have consequences, and among the possible consequences are some possible negative outcomes. That applies to both men and women.

A responsible parent would attempt to dissuade a daughter from A) staying out unnecessarily late at night; B) spending any more time than absolutely necessary in rough parts of town; C) giving rides to total strangers; and D) [facetiously] eating junk food at 3 a.m. An irresponsible daughter will ignore all of that advice - especially the part about junk food. :D Consequently, while I won't speculate about unprovable motives for why a couple of young ladies were eating at Jack's at 3 a.m. or what they were doing out that late in the first place, I will say that it was extremely unwise of them to ignore the obvious threats to their own personal safety. It was more than unwise. It was stupid, and stupidity should not be without consequence. That does not mean that I think they deserved specifically what happened to them; but it does mean that my sympathies are somewhat dampened, because it was their own stupidity that placed them there.

Ditto for adults. I always have at least some degree of sympathy for a victim of a crime. However, we all have choices in life. Some of those choices are fraught with risks. Some of those risks involve placing ourselves into situations where there is a higher likelihood of becoming a victim. In a case where that choice is unavoidable, then the victim retains 100% of my sympathy if things go south on them. In a case where that choice was entirely unnecessary and avoidable, then at least a small modicum of responsibility for the outcome does rest on the victim's shoulders because they chose irresponsibly. At that point, my response is more along the lines of, "gee... that's too bad, I feel terrible for you, but what did you expect?" That doesn't mean that I think you deserve whatever the predator did to you, but it does mean that I'm free to ask, "what in tarnation were you thinking?" And my hope would be that the other person will learn a lesson, and tell him/herself "that's the last time I'll ever be stupid in that way again." Sometimes, the hardest lessons are the ones best learned.

KD5NRH wrote:

Embalmo wrote:I think what you're missing here is that that driving during rush hour and leaving one's house is not a foolish, unnecessary act.

It certainly is; I've managed to avoid driving in rush hour traffic for years while still maintaining gainful employment.

Yeah, but then if everybody did like you, you'd be driving in rush hour traffic again, wouldn't you?

Sure, it's possible... ...for some. But realistically, it isn't possible for all.